His strategy deliberations are starting to look like dangerous indecision.

Doyle McManus

November 15, 2009

Barack Obama is in danger of giving deliberation a bad name.

The decision about whether to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan was never going to be easy, but events -- and a collision of egos in Kabul -- have conspired to make it even harder.

Obama was right to insist on a full review of whether U.S. interests are better served by expanding the American military footprint in Afghanistan or shrinking it.

But now, two months into his second "comprehensive policy review," after eight Cabinet-level meetings and several slipped target dates, the president still hasn't made up his mind.

In George W. Bush, we had a president who shot first and asked questions later. In Barack Obama, we have a president who asks the right questions but hesitates to pull the trigger.

Three weeks ago, former Vice President Dick Cheney accused Obama of "dithering." At the time, the charge sounded premature and partisan -- but now some of Obama's own supporters have begun to wonder whether Cheney was right....

...

...Those are hard questions to answer -- harder still when a policy debate lasts for months and becomes public. These aren't just style points; the battle in Washington is causing real problems for U.S. foreign policy, beginning with mixed messages to both allies and adversaries.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates described the dilemma succinctly last week: "How do we signal resolve -- and at the same time signal to the Afghans and the American people that this isn't an open-ended commitment?"

The long debate has made Obama look indecisive and uncertain -- because he has been. And the leaks of conflicting positions have given his critics ammunition for the postmortem debate over any decision he makes. If Obama chooses to go small, hawks will accuse him of ignoring the advice of his own military commander, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who asked for 40,000 additional troops. If he goes big, doves will accuse him of ignoring the advice of Ambassador Eikenberry, who said the additional troops wouldn't do much good.

When he ran for president, "no drama Obama" prided himself on a campaign organization that never aired internal disputes and always closed ranks in common cause. Not in this process, which has turned into a very un-Obamalike battle of leaks and counterleaks. This much transparency, alas, creates a problem: Washingtonians love to keep track of winners and losers. A well-managed process gives losers a chance to lick their wounds in private, without suffering public damage to their reputations. This one is more likely to end in public recriminations.

The debate has frayed relationships between the military officers who proposed the Afghan escalation and the civilian politicians (Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) who run the White House. White House officials were irritated when McChrystal's strategy proposal leaked in October, seeing it as an attempt by the military to box Obama in....

Sorry this has nothing to do with the situation in Afghanistan and everything to do with the declining poll performance of the Democrats and that lack of enthusiasm for their candidate expressed even among their core support.

Obama almost certainly believes that if he sends more troops, really the only rational decision at this point, that his support among the far left loons that make up his base will fall to nothing and without their enthusiatic support he hasn't got a prayer of holding both houses of congress.

Interesting talk today on CNN. A round table discussion on Obama's Asian tour. Several noted China experts were pointing out Obama is viewed as weak by China and the US is considered in decline. Way to represent Mr. President.

Hurry home and cuddle terrorists, while you mull over Afghanistan policy for a couple of weeks more.

Back burner?? Why do you want to whine about Bush? Is Bush still president?

How about during the campaign Obama talked tough about AFG. He even wanted to invade Pakistan. Obama had it all figured out in march, and set the "new" strategy. Now all of a sudden Obama has no clue what to do. He goes campaigning instead of deciding on the request from his hand-picked general. I can see Obama doing what all dems do, make military decisions with "political correctness".

Interesting talk today on CNN. A round table discussion on Obama's Asian tour. Several noted China experts were pointing out Obama is viewed as weak by China and the US is considered in decline. Way to represent Mr. President.

Hurry home and cuddle terrorists, while you mull over Afghanistan policy for a couple of weeks more.

Click to expand...

Someone said "Weakness is a provocation, an invitiation to our foes to confront us" I heard that Donald Rumsfeld said that but it can't be proven. But in the same 'vein' but with more certain attribution:
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid" - Gen Eisenhower.

"We are men of action, lies do not become us."

Our enemies know that the only Americans who can or need be beaten do not wear uniforms. A society that does not have the will to let its warriors die fighting will not long survive. A civilization that values its very being less than the dignity of its sworn enemies should be morally prepared to fail.- Sgt Goldich, USMC

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!